Thanks, Mike. Most responses were, as requested, directed to me, not to the
reflector. I'm still collecting and will summarize to the reflector.
Although it is possible but expensive to build one's own second station or
to rent at a commercial venture, many people already have a remote site or
can find access to a remote station operated by a friend. I was not asking
people to build new facilities in order to experiment with this proposed
UNOFFICIAL sub-category! All I wanted to do was describe a novel way of
operating ("SO2Q") and invite those who are interested to give it a try.
Nothing more.
73,
/Rick N6XI
On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 7:01 AM ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca <ve9aa@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
> Rick,
>
> While I certainly do admire your enthusiasm and creativity, seeing no
> replies
> (online, not email) to your question I felt I would comment from the
> "average
> guy" perspective.
>
> This is a very cool idea, but for most of us, we either cannot afford to
> build a
> remote station in a nice location or barring that , afford to rent one.
>
> What with Covid, anyone who can afford a remote, has them all tied up.
>
> I'd love to have one in VO1, VE1 , or VO2, but am not that wealthy.
>
> Sooooo, while your idea is "interesting", I'll stick to my olde skool
> version of
> SO2"R" here at my own QTH.
>
> Those with more loose greenbacks can (and will) do SO2Q
>
> GL/Have fun
>
> CU (all of a sudden) in the next one.
>
> Mike VE9AA......NB
>
>
>
>
>
> In NAQP CW recently, I did something I'd been itching to try for a long
> time - SO2Q = "Single Op, 2 QTHs." With Rig 1 operating locally and Rig 2
> remote from another QTH about 150 miles away, it worked like SO2R but with
> absolutely no inter-station interference. I had to submit it as a checklog
> because there was no category permitting multiple locations. It was fun but
> it didn't contribute any points to my club.
>
> CQ WPX, on the other hand, has a new category called "Multi-Transmitter
> Distributed" in which up to six geographically separated stations in the
> same country and CQ zone can operate under one call, limited to one signal
> per band. It's reminiscent of the W1AW distributed operations that many of
> us participated in, but for a contest. There is nothing in the rules that
> *requires* more than one operator, so an SO2Q configuration like mine would
> be compliant. The base category is multi-tx and allows all stations to
> transmit simultaneously, uncoordinated. In NAQP, I told my logging program
> I was SO2R, so it didn't allow that.
>
> I plan to try this, at least in the CW event and maybe SSB or RTTY as well.
> Care to join me? If there's sufficient interest, I'll sweeten the pot by
> offering a prize to the high-scoring operator(s), probably something you
> can drink or trade in at a ham store. If you're interested, please reply
> off-line to the following:
>
> 1. Which mode(s) would you operate as SO2Q in WPX?
> 2. Big effort, serious part-time, or just playing around?
> 3. QRP, LP, or HP?
> 4. Should the single op be allowed to transmit on multiple bands at the
> same time or should SO2R single-signal rules apply?
> 5. Should spotting be allowed as it is in the base multi-distributed
> category or should it be unassisted like local SO2R?
>
> If you are at all interested, please reply directly to conserve bandwidth
> on the reflector. A positive response is not a commitment but hopefully
> most who say Yes will show up. I'll summarize results and suggest the rules
> and prize(s) if significant competition appears likely.
>
> 73,
>
> /Rick N6XI
>
>
> --
>
> Rick Tavan
> Truckee and Saratoga, CA
> ________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
--
--
Rick Tavan
Truckee and Saratoga, CA
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|